Disposed

Mallaram Arjun v. The Union of India and 3 others

Telangana HC20 Jan 2020WP/14412/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition filed by a school student whose father's name was misspelled in his Class X marks memo. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Head of the Institution for correction before seeking judicial intervention, thereby declining to pass a direct correction order in this Writ Petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to submit an application for correction to the Head of the Institution within two weeks.

Mallaram Arjun Vs The Union of India and 3 others — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.No.14412 of 2019

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing petitioners 10^th class marks memo showing fathers name as ‘ANJANEYALU MALLARAM’ instead of ‘ANJANEYULU MALLARAM’ as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent No.2 to issue petitioner’s new 10^th class marks memo by correcting petitioner’s father name ‘ANJANEYALU MALLARAM’ to ‘ANJANEYULU MALLARAM’ and pass such other order or orders.

¶6

Heard Sri J.P.Srikanth, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. A.Chaya Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that he passed 10^th class from Central Board of Secondary Education during 2010. But, in the marks memo, his father name was incorrectly mentioned as ‘Anjaneyalu Mallaram’ instead of ‘Anjaneyulu Mallaram’. The petitioner has submitted an application seeking correction of his father’s name. But the respondents have not corrected the same.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing respondents 2 and 3 to correct the name of the father of the petitioner in the SSC marks memo.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents contended that the petitioner must submit an application seeking correction of the entries made in the SSC marks memo through Head of the Institution where the petitioner has last studied and the same will be forwarded to respondents 2 and 3, who in turn, would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit an application seeking correction of his father’s name in the 10^th Class marks memo through the Head of the Institution where he last studied within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, upon which, respondents 2 and 3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules.

¶11

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

¶12

_____________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶13

Date: 20.01.2020 rkk

Mallaram Arjun v. The Union of India and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallaram Arjun v. The Union of India and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch.Kanthaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Smt.Mandula Rama, And 9 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And 4 Others

Sollangi Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Mallikarjuna Engineering Works Vs Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited(Tsspdcl)

Chinthapally Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Badam Shanker Vs The State of Telangana